Squatting becomes a criminal offence in UK tomorrow, "Immediate crackdown"

Patrick2010

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/squatter-will-be-paid-1m-by-council-to-leave-12acre-site-695616.html

A MAN who secured squatters' rights after starting a tyre and car-parts business on council-owned land in north Dublin 20 years ago is to be paid over €1m to leave the site.
Fingal County Council yesterday confirmed it would pay David Joyce €1.1m to vacate a 12-acre site on Dunsink Lane so the land could be used for a regeneration project in the Finglas area.
But it denied newspaper reports that his brothers, one of whom is serving a jail sentence, would receive almost €2m to leave other sites in the area where they have been squatting.
The Joyce brothers David, Alan and Martin - who is in prison for failing to make tax returns and for running a diesel-laundering operation - have lived on council-owned land for over 20 years which entitles them to squatters' rights, known as as adverse possession.
They are being bought out under a compulsory purchase order (CPO).
Yesterday, a council spokesman confirmed that agreement had been reached with David Joyce, a member of the Travelling community, to acquire 12-acres of land he used as part of his business.
But it described as "widely inaccurate" claims in a Sunday newspaper that the council would pay out €23m to secure other land parcels in the area.
"The report is widely inaccurate with its figure of €23m," a council spokesman said.
"We have made a settlement with one person and certainly haven't reached agreement with anyone else.
"There's a plan being prepared for the Dunsink area, and there are claims lodged with us for possessory title.
"By getting those 12 acres we can get at another 13 acres."
The Joyces were living in the area for "considerably longer" than the 12 years required to secure squatters rights, he added, and legal advice to the council said they held possession.
David Joyce is understood to have moved out three weeks ago, and relocated to a house near Ashbourne in Co Meath.



This was from 2007, how on earth were these guys left so long on the site that they were able to build up squatters rights??

Boombastic

Patrick2010 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/squatter-will-be-paid-1m-by-council-to-leave-12acre-site-695616.html

A MAN who secured squatters' rights after starting a tyre and car-parts .................................

and there wasn't even a house there. 1million would have went a long way to pay for a proper halting site


Here is another Feb 2012
A man who broke into a Dublin house 30 years ago has won squatters rights, the Irish Supreme Court has ruled.

The court ruled that Desmond Grogan can continue to live at Enniskerry Road in Phibsboro, Dublin, according to the Irish Independent. It is understood he rents out the property to a number of tenants.

The house originally belonged to Alice Dolan, an 80-year-old barrister who died in October 1981 without ever having made a will. Her husband Patrick had passed away in 1969.

Grogan broke into the house in February 1982 after he learnt about the barrister’s death through his auctioneering job.

RATM

Patrick2010 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/squatter-will-be-paid-1m-by-council-to-leave-12acre-site-695616.html

A MAN who secured squatters' rights after starting a tyre and car-parts business on council-owned land in north Dublin 20 years ago is to be paid over €1m to leave the site.
Fingal County Council yesterday confirmed it would pay David Joyce €1.1m to vacate a 12-acre site on Dunsink Lane so the land could be used for a regeneration project in the Finglas area.
But it denied newspaper reports that his brothers, one of whom is serving a jail sentence, would receive almost €2m to leave other sites in the area where they have been squatting.
The Joyce brothers David, Alan and Martin - who is in prison for failing to make tax returns and for running a diesel-laundering operation - have lived on council-owned land for over 20 years which entitles them to squatters' rights, known as as adverse possession.
They are being bought out under a compulsory purchase order (CPO).
Yesterday, a council spokesman confirmed that agreement had been reached with David Joyce, a member of the Travelling community, to acquire 12-acres of land he used as part of his business.
But it described as "widely inaccurate" claims in a Sunday newspaper that the council would pay out €23m to secure other land parcels in the area.
"The report is widely inaccurate with its figure of €23m," a council spokesman said.
"We have made a settlement with one person and certainly haven't reached agreement with anyone else.
"There's a plan being prepared for the Dunsink area, and there are claims lodged with us for possessory title.
"By getting those 12 acres we can get at another 13 acres."
The Joyces were living in the area for "considerably longer" than the 12 years required to secure squatters rights, he added, and legal advice to the council said they held possession.
David Joyce is understood to have moved out three weeks ago, and relocated to a house near Ashbourne in Co Meath.



This was from 2007, how on earth were these guys left so long on the site that they were able to build up squatters rights??

That's interesting becuase as far as I am aware you need to be squatting on private property for 12 years before you can apply for adverse possession. But for state land it is 30 years you need to be there. Pretty sure I read that somewhere a while back, maybe someone else can clarify ?

questionmark?

Biodegradable Bellend wrote: »

This is a change in the law to facilitate the interests of banks ie. repossessed properties. Now the banks don't have to pay private security to mind their "investments" the state takes on the role, taxpayer foots the bill. If this was being done with the common interest of all property owners, it would have been done long ago.

Eventually anything which conflicts with the interests of big business will be criminalized.

When a bank repossess a property they don't just hang on to the place. They have to sell it, at the best price possible. If the sale value is less than the loan and associated costs of the repossession, then whoever took out the loan is still liable to pay the shortfall, all be it as a unsecured loan. Thus if they have to provide security for the place the shortfall will be even larger and the poor family that have been evicted now have an even bigger bill to pay because of squatters.

asherbassad wrote: »

The bank owns it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You own it when you get the deeds.

No they don't. They hold a charge over the property and the deeds are kept as part of the security for the loan. Can you imagine the legal costs of enforcing a possession order if the bank did not hold the deeds.



Anyway, fcuk squatters rights in residential properties. The vast majority are not your standard homeless person sleeping on the streets but rather a middle class hippy fighting the system man:rolleyes:

jill_valentine

Pat Kenny.

Boombastic

01/08/12

€40,000 + €50,000 = €90,000 to move on and not even a house on the property:mad:


I want to be a nomad and get paid to move off other peoples property, It's good to know that taxes are going for something useful.

Lantus

pickarooney wrote: »

So what should prisoners be doing to pay for the cost of their incarceration?

The real question is what can society do to prevent people from committing crime in the first place; and I dont mean more laws. It would be good to work towards a point where we dont need to incarcerate people for such a huge range of so called 'crimes', many of which we could design out or are totally disproportionate to the punishment.

Better and more relevant education from birth would be a start, not just training people to become good at a task or role.

We are all quick to blame parents and society at large for criminal behaviour but not so good at presenting long term solutions at solving the problems.

Note: prison is not a solution, its a social distortion we have been brought up to believe is required. Most crims are monetarily based. But we live in a society that has enshrined monetary wealth and the things we can buy. It also creates large swathes of poverty and scarcity by the nature of the system. We cannot then blame people for responding to a system we willingly impose on ourselves and indocrinate our children into from birth without question.

grundie

Back in 1986 my mother had to run away from England due to abuse from the local thugs who decided they didn't want any Irish in their neighbourhood.

I was nine at the time and my father had died when I was four. My mother was in a pretty helpless situation so we abandoned all to move back to her home city of Derry.

We joined the Housing Executive waiting list and slowly moved up. After six months we got an offer of a property, we signed the tennancy agreement and before we could move in - it was squatted.

This was repeated FIVE times! On one occasion we had even put furniture in the property. The same family squatted two of the properties we were offered.

The Housing Exectuve told us to wait a bit longer, they knew that figting squatters was a nightmare. Also, being in a nationalist area the RUC were little help.

After 14 months we got a home. Someone tried to squat that too, but we had got wise and had a family member look after the place as soon as it was empty.

What did the squatters say? "SQUATTERS RIGHTS!!!". Thet's all they could say over and over again. The matriarch of the family who squatted twice said to my mother "I've got 12 wains and they need somewhere to live, you've only got 1 so you can manage".

These were not people in need, these were people who were not willing to play by the rules and wait their turn on the housing list. Most of them had homes already, but they just wanted more for all their offspring.

We had to live in a crap social security B&B for over a year because of selfish squatters, I have no sympathy for them.

minidazzler

Sykk wrote: »

Squatters rights is about a ridiculous a law as not being able to defend your property using lethal force if necessary

Squatters rights is a fantastic law. Squatters can be moved on quickly enough at the behest of the property owner just making a simple application to the courts. It stops people leaving property unwatched for long periods of time, I mean, if a guy doesn't even have someone look in on his property once in 7 years, then it's time someone took it.

I'm guessing it's original purpose was for when people died leaving property to noone or died while away and noone knew. (before telephone and such) Good law anyway.

A Lot o Squatters break nothing, they actually live in the place, and the only way to gain true Squatters rights is to make the property your home and then make an application through the courts to gain ownership. You have to improve the property in some way.

Guy:Incognito

minidazzler wrote: »

if a guy doesn't even have someone look in on his property once in 7 years, then it's time someone took it.

.

Why? He owns it, he can do whatever the hell he wants with it.

Neewbie_noob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Police are being urged to take advantage of new laws that will allow them to move in and arrest squatters.

I could see both sides to this, genuine homeless people move into a derelict or abandoned building owned by greedy banks such as unfinished / liquidated ghost complexes or people scrounging around looking for any opportunity to occupy vacant houses while their owners are off guard.

The latter no harm.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9510071/Police-must-move-in-and-arrest-squatters-says-Minister.html

I assume you mean "the former is no harm" as in it's ok for homeless people to occupy bankers vacant lots. I still think that the law is the law, and police should have always had the power to arrest squatters, who are essentially trespassers. If they should allow some kinds of squatting and not others as your post suggests, then where do you draw the line? There should be no grey area when it comes to issues like this.

minidazzler

stevedublin wrote: »

Grossly unfair law, why should someone get something for free that others have to work hard to buy?

Squatters have to work hard to maintain whatever property they are in. And are at constant risk of eviction should the owner just get someone to check that it's empty seeing that it's not they just get the bailiffs in.

If the property is being used by noone is it better to leave it empty or that someone just moves in and improves?